Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/18] PVH xen: tools changes to create PVH domain

[Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:29:44 +0100
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 12:13 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Mukesh Rathor
> > <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> I'm not sure how you are currently signalling to the hypervisor
> > >> that a new domain is a PVH domain? I had a look through this
> > >> patch and must be being thick because I don't see it.
> > >
> > > I had a flag set, but it was recommended during RFC to remove it.
> > > So, now in xen, a PV with HAP is a PVH guest:
> > 
> > Why was it recommended to remove it?
> > 
> > "PVH == PV + HAP" is a ridiculous interface, and one which will make
> > it hard to import shadow in the future.  In my series I'm planning
> > on adding XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_pvh_guest, and using that instead.
> 
> These are not stable ABI interfaces, so if someone wants to do PVH
> with Shadow then they can just change it.

I thought we named PVH for PV with HAP :).. for shadow are we going
to rename it to PVS?? :)..... Besides for shadow the tools do the right
thing:

arch_setup_meminit():
    if ( xc_dom_feature_translated(dom) && !dom->pvh_enabled )
    {
        dom->shadow_enabled = 1;
        rc = x86_shadow(dom->xch, dom->guest_domid);
        ..

In any case, I am ok either way...

Mukesh


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel